Why contempt? Do you share the same contempt for Calderón for throwing public money at his wife’s family? And how much of that money came back to him in favor of campaign contributions?
Not surprising that your in-laws are fervent Panistas being from Guanajuato. Does your knowledge of Mexican history mean that you are aware of the militancy of the derechistas that have always controlled or heavily influenced politics in that state? Have you ever heard of the “Organización Nacional del Yunque”? If you’re truly concerned with freedom and free thought do a little investigation of that group or similar organizations in Guanajuato.
I’m not sure what your point is here. Because you see Mexico from an outsider’s point of view what does that have to do with the election?
This seems like a tactic popularly used in US politics. Smear the opponent and later when called on it make a less than serious attempt at retraction after you seed the idea in the voters minds. If I hadn’t called you on it, readers on this MB (not that they care) would have never known the ridiculousness of your statement.
I have never claimed AMLO was a “great man”. Now you are trying to put words in my mouth. AMLO certainly has faults but IMO is a better option than Calderón.
[QUOTE=CBEscapee]
Have you ever heard of the “Organización Nacional del Yunque”?
Not before, but . . . hmmm . . . based on this, it sounds like an upper-class Latin-Catholic version of the Klan – at the height of its power in the 1920s.
No, more like the remnant of the fascist sinarquista movement organized along the lines and with the help of the Spanish Falange in the 1930’s. Post Mexican Revolution reactionaries. These aren’t some ignorant redneck racists but highly intelligent and successful people. Think Franco in Spain or Pinochet in Chile.
The verb would be “is,” represented by “'s.” In English, we use contractions, and we do not always write in complete sentences where the verb of one sentence is implied in the preceding sentence. Might not satisfy Strunk & White, but who gives a Stuart Little’s ass?
1.- As far as I can tell, the 3 million “disappearing” votes were more of an oversight than anything else. Apparently there was an agreement among the parties (signed in February) which stated they wouldn’t post any suspect votes on the preliminary count.
2.- The accusations have veered all over the place. At first, López Obrador (AMLO) argued against the Preliminary count and the official Districtal Count, telling everyone the counting systems were corrupted (somehow). Just yesterday, however, his argument specifically eliminated those allegations and he’s now speaking about an “old-fashioned” fraud.
3.- One of the more frustrating episodes was the one where he showed a video which supposedly proved the stuffing of ballots. However, later it was shown that what happened at that polling place was rather the misplacement of some congress-related votes in the presidential ballot. The representatives present at the polling place agreed to have them transferred to its proper ballot.
So far, so good. But when the press asked AMLO about the incident and mentioned his party’s representative agreeing with the procedure, he hinted at that girl’s probable corruption…
I can agree with the idea that you have to recount every vote to insure that the winner has actually gotten most votes. Hey, errors happen every day and when you’re talking about a .5 percent difference, those errors just might swing the election.
But there’s a difference between smearing EVERYONE, insisting on having the results (telepathically, perhaps?) when all official and extra-official result contradicts your story, inventing new corruption stories on the fly, hinting at economical and societal disruption if your “victory” isn’t accepted
and asking for respect for the democratic process.
I’m here to interject that the best way to get rid of corruption is what’s happening now: truly multi-party elections. IMO it wasn’t NAFTA that got Mexico’s economy to start moving faster, but the fact that, simultaneously with it, the PRI lost its monopoly on power.
You no longer see what you saw at the end of the Salinas regime, the ruling family looting the country to such an extent that the entire nation suffers a financial crisis because of it. The reason is simple: if you have more than one party with a realistic shot at power, you get checks and balances. REAL ones, based in partisan politics, that work.
I’m neutral as to whether it’s Calderon or Lopez: each would do some things that will be good for Mexico in the long run. Neither will be able to get away with anything remotely like what Salinas did in terms of corruption, and that’s the best thing about all this.
Here’s another article, pointing out still more irregularities, but also blaming the closeness of the vote on Obrador’s arrogance, messianic style, and amateurish approach to campaigning.
They don’t do that in Mexican politics?
(Or, Tonto, Tarzan & Frankenstein.)
